Abstract: In July 1993, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) was petitioned for an emergency temporary standard (ETS) to reduce the permissible exposure limit (PEL) for occupational exposures to hexavalent chromium CrVI. The Oil, Chemical, and Atomic Workers International Union (OCAW) and Public Citizen's Health Research Group (HRG) petitioned OSHA to promulgate an ETS to lower the PEL for CrVI compounds to 0.5 micrograms per cubic meter of air (ug/m3) as an eight-hour, time-weighted average (TWA). The current PEL in general industry is a ceiling value of 100 ug/m3, measured as CrVI and reported as chromic anhydride (CrO3). The amount of CrVI in the anhydride compound equates to a PEL of 52 ug/m3. This ceiling limit applies to all forms of CrVI, including chromic acid and chromates, lead chromate, and zinc chromate. The current PEL for CrVI in the construction industry is 100 ug/m3 as a TWA PEL, which also equates to a PEL of 52 ug/m3. After reviewing the petition, OSHA denied the request for an ETS and initiated a section 6(b)(5) rulemaking.

OSHA began collecting data and performing preliminary analyses relevant to occupational exposure to CrVI. However, in 1997, OSHA was sued by HRG for unreasonable delay in issuing a final CrVI standard. The 3rd Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeals ruled in OSHA's favor and the Agency continued its data collection and analytic efforts on CrVI. In 2002, OSHA was sued again by HRG for continued unreasonable delay in issuing a final CrVI standard. In August, 2002 OSHA published a Request for Information on CrVI to solicit additional information on key issues related to controlling exposures to CrVI and on December 4, 2002 OSHA announced its intent to proceed with developing a proposed standard. On December 24, 2002, the 3rd Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeals ruled in favor of HRG and ordered the Agency to proceed expeditiously with a CrVI standard.

The major illnesses associated with occupational exposure to CrVI are lung cancer and dermatoses. OSHA estimates that approximately one million workers are exposed to CrVI on a regular basis in all industries. The major uses of CrVI are: as a structural and anti-corrosive element in the production of stainless steel, ferrochromium, iron and steel, and in electroplating, welding and painting.

Abstract: In January 1993, OSHA issued a general industry rule to protect employees who enter confined spaces (29 CFR 1910.146). This standard does not apply to the construction industry because of differences in the nature of the worksite in the construction industry. In discussions with the United Steel Workers of America on a settlement agreement for the general industry standard, OSHA agreed to issue a proposed rule to extend confined-space protection to construction workers appropriate to their work environment. OSHA intends to issue a proposed rule addressing this construction industry hazard next year.

Abstract: OSHA has undertaken a review of the ethylene oxide (ETO) standard in accordance with the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and section 5 of EO 12866. The review has considered the continued need for the rule, the impacts of the rule, comments on the rule received from the public, the complexity of the rule, whether the rule overlaps, duplicates or conflicts with other Federal, State or local regulations, and the degree to which technology, economic conditions or other factors may have changed since the rule was last evaluated. The Agency's findings with respect to this review will be published in a report available to the public in 2003.

Abstract: Electrical hazards are a major cause of occupational death in the United States. The annual fatality rate for power line workers is about 50 deaths per 100,000 employees. The construction industry standard addressing the safety of these workers during the construction of electric power transmission and distribution lines is over 30 years old. OSHA is developing a revision of this standard that will prevent many of these fatalities, add flexibility to the standard, and update and streamline the standard. OSHA also intends to amend the corresponding standard for general industry so that requirements for work performed during the maintenance of electric power transmission and distribution installations are the same as those for similar work in construction. In addition, OSHA will be revising a few miscellaneous general industry requirements primarily affecting electric transmission and distribution work, including provisions on electrical protective equipment and foot protection. This rulemaking will also address fall protection in aerial lifts for power generation, transmission and distribution work. The proposed rule is currently in the SBREFA process.

Abstract: Crystalline silica is a significant component of the earth's crust, and many workers in a wide range of industries are exposed to it, usually in the form of respirable quartz or, less frequently, cristobalite. Chronic silicosis is a uniquely occupational disease resulting from exposure of employees over long periods of time (10 years or more). Exposure to high levels of respirable crystalline silica causes acute or accelerated forms of silicosis that are ultimately fatal. The current OSHA permissible exposure limit (PEL) for general industry is based on a formula recommended by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) in 1971 [PEL=10mg/cubic meter/(%silica + 2), as respirable dust]. The current PEL for construction and maritime (derived from ACGIH's 1962 Threshold Limit Value) is based on particle counting technology, which is considered obsolete. NIOSH and ACGIH recommend a 50ug/m3 exposure limit for respirable crystalline silica.

Both industry and worker groups have recognized that a comprehensive standard for crystalline silica is needed to provide for exposure monitoring, medical surveillance, and worker training. The American Society of Testing Materials (ASTM) recently published a final recommended standard to address the hazards of crystalline silica. The Building Construction Trades Department of the AFL-CIO has also developed a recommended comprehensive program standard. These standards include provisions for methods of compliance, exposure monitoring, training, and medical surveillance.

In developing a proposed standard, OSHA is currently considering several options ranging from proposing comprehensive standards simultaneously for general industry, construction, and maritime, to focusing the proposal on one or more specific issues, such as modernizing the construction and maritime PELs or standardizing sampling and employee exposures. OSHA is continuing to coordinate closely with the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) in collecting and developing information for a proposed standard.

Statement of Need: Over 2 million workers are exposed to crystalline silica dust in general industry, construction and maritime industries. Industries that could be particularly affected by a standard for crystalline silica include: foundries, industries that have abrasive blasting operation, paint manufacture, glass and concrete product manufacture, brick making, china and pottery manufacture, manufacture of plumbing fixtures, and many construction activities including highway repair, masonry, concrete work, rock drilling, and tuckpointing. The seriousness of the health hazards associated with silica exposure is demonstrated by the fatalities and disabling illnesses that continue to occur. Between 1990 and 1996, 200 to 300 deaths per year are known to have occurred where silicosis was identified on death certificates as an underlying or contributing cause. It is likely that many more cases have occurred where silicosis went undetected. In addition, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has designated crystalline silica as a known human carcinogen. Exposure to crystalline silica has also been associated with an increased risk of developing tuberculosis and other nonmalignant, renal and autoimmune respiratory diseases. Exposure studies and OSHA enforcement data indicate that some workers continue to be exposed to levels of crystalline silica far in excess of current exposure limits. Congress has recently included compensation of silicosis victims on Federal nuclear testing sites in the Energy Employees' Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000. There is a particular need for the Agency to modernize its exposure limits for construction and maritime, and to address some specific issues that will need to be resolved to propose a comprehensive standard.

Summary of Legal Basis: The legal basis for the proposed rule is a preliminary determination that workers are exposed to a significant risk of silicosis and other serious disease and that rulemaking is needed to substantially reduce the risk. In addition, the proposed rulemaking will recognize that the PELs for construction and maritime are outdated and need to be revised to reflect current sampling and analytical technologies.

Alternatives: Over the past several years, the Agency has attempted to address this problem through a variety of nonregulatory approaches, including initiation of a Special Emphasis Program on silica in October 1997, sponsorship with NIOSH and MSHA of the National Conference to Eliminate Silicosis, and dissemination of guidance information on its Web site. OSHA has determined that rulemaking is a necessary step to ensure that workers are protected from the hazards of crystalline silica. The Agency is currently evaluating several options for the scope of the rulemaking.

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The scope of the proposed rulemaking is still under development, and estimates of the costs and benefits have not yet been developed.

Risks: A detailed risk analysis has not yet been completed for this rule.

Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined

Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b)

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.109

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: OSHA is considering amending 29 CFR 1910.1096 that addresses exposure to ionizing radiation. The OSHA regulations were published in 1974, with only minor revisions since that time. The Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission both have more extensive radiation standards that reflect new technological and safety advances. In addition, radiation is now used for a broader variety of purposes, including health care, food safety, mail processing, and baggage screening. OSHA is in the process of reviewing information about the issue, and will determine the appropriate course of action regarding this standard when the review is completed.

1820. ASSIGNED PROTECTION FACTORS: AMENDMENTS TO THE FINAL RULE ON RESPIRATORY PROTECTION

Priority: Other Significant.

Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b); 29 USC 657

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.134

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: In January 1998, OSHA published the final Respiratory Protection standard (29 CFR 1910.134), except for reserved provisions on assigned protection factors (APFs) and maximum use concentrations (MUCs). APFs are numbers that describe the effectiveness of the various classes of respirators in reducing employee exposure to airborne contaminants (including particulates, gases, vapors, biological agents, etc.). Employers, employees, and safety and health professionals use APFs to determine the type of respirator to protect the health of employees in various hazardous environments. Maximum use concentrations establish the maximum airborne concentration of a contaminant in which a respirator with a given APF may be used.

Currently, OSHA relies on the APFs developed by NIOSH in the 1980s unless OSHA has assigned a different APF in a substance-specific health standard. However, many employers follow the more recent APFs published in the industry consensus standard, ANSI Z88.2-1992. For some classes of respirators, the NIOSH and ANSI APFs vary greatly.

When OSHA published the final Respiratory Protection standard in 1998, it reserved for later rulemaking those provisions of the standard dealing with APFs and MUCs. This rulemaking action will complete the 1998 standard, reduce compliance confusion among employers, and provide employees with consistent and appropriate respiratory protection.

Statement of Need: About 5 million employees wear respirators as part of their regular job duties. Due to inconsistencies between the APFs found in the current industry consensus standard (ANSI Z88.2-1992) and in the NIOSH Respirator Decision Logic, employers, employees, and safety and health professionals are often uncertain about what respirator to select to provide protection against hazardous air contaminants. Several industry and professional groups have asked OSHA to proceed with this rulemaking to resolve these inconsistencies and provide reliable protection of employees' health in cases where respirators must be worn.

Summary of Legal Basis: The legal basis for this proposed rule is the determination that assigned protection factors and maximum use concentrations are necessary to complete the final Respiratory Protection standard and provide the full protection of that standard.

Alternatives: OSHA has considered allowing the current situation to continue, in which OSHA generally enforces NIOSH APFs but many employers follow the more recent consensus standard APFs. However, allowing the continuation of this situation results in inconsistent enforcement, lack of guidance for employers, and the potential for inadequate employee protection.

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Estimates of the costs and benefits have been completed and will be provided when the NPRM is published.

Risks: The preamble to the final Respiratory Protection rule (63 FR 1270, Jan. 8, 1998) discusses the significance of the risks potentially associated with the use of respiratory protection. No independent finding of significant risk will be made for the APF rulemaking, since it only addresses a single provision of the larger rule.

Abstract: OSHA issued a final rule on Longshoring on July 25, 1997 (62 FR 40142). However, in that rule, the Agency reserved provisions related to vertical tandem lifts. Vertical tandem lifts (VTLs) involve the lifting of two or more empty intermodal containers, secured together with twist locks, at the same time. OSHA has continued to work with national and international organizations to gather additional information on the safety of VTLs. The Agency is preparing an NPRM to address safety issues related to VTLs.

Abstract: During the 1980s, OSHA initiated a project to update and consolidate the various OSHA shipyard standards that were applied in the shipbuilding, ship repair, and shipbreaking industries. Publication of a proposal addressing general working conditions in shipyards is part of this project. The operations addressed in this rulemaking relate to general working conditions such as housekeeping, illumination, sanitation, first aid, and lockout/tagout. About 100,000 workers are potentially exposed to these hazards annually.

Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined

Legal Authority: 29 USC 655 (b)

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910 subparts D and I

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: In 1990, OSHA proposed a rule (55 FR 13360) addressing slip, trip, and fall hazards and establishing requirements for personal fall protection systems. Since that time, new technologies and procedures have become available to protect employees from these hazards. The Agency has been working to update these rules to reflect current technology. OSHA is publishing a notice to re-open the rulemaking for comment on a number of issues raised in the record for the NPRM, or related to technological advances. OSHA is updating its regulatory analysis as well.

Timetable:

Action

Date

NPRMNPRM Comment Period EndHearingReopening of RecordComment Period End

Abstract: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is proposing to remove or revise provisions in its health standards that are out of date, duplicative, unnecessary, or inconsistent. The Agency is proposing these changes to reduce the burden imposed on the regulated community by these requirements. In this document, substantive changes are proposed for standards that will revise or eliminate duplicative, inconsistent, or unnecessary regulatory requirements without diminishing employee protections. Phase I of this Standards Improvement process was completed in June 1998 (63 FR 33450). OSHA plans to initiate Phase III of this project at a future date to address problems in various safety and health standards.

Statement of Need: Some of OSHA's standards are out of date, duplicative, unnecessary, or inconsistent. The Agency needs to periodically review its standards and make needed corrections. This effort results in standards that are easier for employers and employees to follow and comply with, and thus enhances compliance and worker protection.

Summary of Legal Basis: The legal basis for the proposed rule is a preliminary finding that the OSHA standards need to be updated to bring them up to date, reduce inconsistency, and remove unneeded provisions.

Alternatives: OSHA has considered updating each standard as problems are discovered, but has determined that it is better to make such changes to groups of standards so it is easier for the public to comment on like standards. OSHA has also considered the inclusion of safety standards that need to be updated. However, the Agency has decided to pursue a separate rulemaking for safety issues because the standards to be updated are of interest to different stakeholders.

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This revision of OSHA's standards is a deregulatory action. It will reduce employers' compliance obligations.

Risks: The project does not address specific risks, but is intended to improve OSHA's standards by bringing them up do date and deleting unneeded provisions. The anticipated changes will have no negative effects on worker safety and health.

Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.

Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b)

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910 subpart S

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is planning to revise and update its 29 CFR 1910 subpart S-Electrical Standards. OSHA will rely heavily on the 2000 edition of the National Fire Protection Association's (NFPA's) 70 E standard for Electrical Safety Requirements for Employee Workplaces. This revision will provide the first update of General Industry-Electrical Standard since it was originally published in 1981. OSHA intends to complete this project in several stages. The first stage will cover design safety standards for electrical systems, while the second stage will cover safety-related maintenance and work practice requirements and safety requirements for special equipment. It will thus allow the latest technological developments to be considered. Several of these state-of-the-art safety developments will be addressed by OSHA for the first time.

Abstract: In January 1998, OSHA published the final Respiratory Protection standard (29 CFR 1910.134). In the final revised respirator standard, OSHA set up a mechanism for OSHA's acceptance of new fit test protocols under Mandatory Appendix A. Any person may submit to OSHA an application for approval of a new fit test protocol, and if the application meets certain criteria, OSHA will initiate a rulemaking proceeding under 6(b)(7) of the OSH Act to determine whether to list the new protocol as an approved fit test protocol in Appendix A. OSHA has been petitioned to allow the use of a modified Controlled Negative Pressure (CNP) fit test protocol.

Employers, employees, and safety and health professionals use fit testing to select respirators. Currently OSHA relies on fit testing methods specified in Appendix A of the final revised Respiratory Protection standard.

When OSHA published the final Respiratory Protection standard in 1998, it allowed for later rulemaking on new fit test methods. This rulemaking action will allow for the incorporation of new fit test methods into 1910.134.

Abstract: In 1993, the Labor Coalition to Fight TB in the Workplace petitioned the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to develop an occupational health standard to protect workers who care for or oversee patients or others with active tuberculosis (TB) against the transmission of TB. After reviewing the available information, OSHA preliminarily concluded that a significant risk of occupational transmission of TB exists for some workers in some work settings and began rulemaking on a proposed standard. Examples of workers at risk of contracting TB as a result of their work are health care workers, detention facility personnel, and homeless shelter employees. On October 17, 1997, OSHA published its proposed standard for occupational exposure to TB (62 FR 54160). The proposed standard would require employers to protect TB-exposed workers using infection control measures that have been shown to be highly effective in reducing or eliminating work-related TB infections. Such measures include procedures for the early identification of individuals with infectious TB, isolation of individuals with infectious TB using appropriate ventilation, use of respiratory protection in certain situations, and skin testing and training of employees.

After the close of the written comment period for the proposed standard, informal public hearings were held in Washington, DC, Los Angeles, CA, New York City, NY, and Chicago, IL. The post-hearing comment period closed on October 5, 1998. On June 17, 1999, OSHA reopened the rulemaking record for 90 days to submit the Agency's report on homeless shelters and certain other documents that became available to the Agency after the close of the post-hearing comment period. During this limited reopening of the rulemaking record, OSHA also requested interested parties to submit comments and data on the Agency's preliminary risk assessment in order to obtain the best, most recent data for providing the most accurate estimates of the occupational risk of tuberculosis. OSHA has now decided to withdraw the TB rulemaking.

At the request of Congress, the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences (IOM) conducted a study of OSHA's proposal and the need for a TB standard. That study was completed in January 2001, and concluded that OSHA should move forward with a standard modeled after the CDC guidelines and tailored to the extent of TB risk present in the community. The IOM study concluded that an OSHA standard was needed to maintain national TB rates among health care and other employees at their current levels and to prevent future outbreaks of multidrug resistant and other forms of TB among these workers. OSHA reopened the record to obtain comment on the IOM study, the draft final risk assessment and the peer reviewers' comment on the risk assessment. The Agency has decided to withdraw the proposal.

Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined

Legal Authority: 29 USC 655

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1915, subpart P

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: The rule will update and revise an important but outdated part of OSHA's shipyard rules. The original rule was adopted by OSHA in 1971 and has remained unchanged since then. A negotiated rulemaking committee was convened on October 15, 1996. Members of the committee included: OSHA, State government, Federal agency, small and large shipyard employers, and maritime and firefighter union representatives. The committee completed work in February 2002, and recommended proposal requirements to OSHA. The Agency has published an NPRM based on their recommendations.

Statement of Need: Fires in the shipyard environment may cause death and serious injuries in this 100,000-employee workforce. Updating OSHA's outdated shipyard requirements for fire extinguishers, sprinkler systems, detection systems, alarm systems, and fire brigades will facilitate compliance by employers and employees and reduce these fire-related injuries and fatalities.

Summary of Legal Basis: The legal basis for this proposed rule is a preliminary determination that an unacceptable risk of fire-related injuries and fatalities exists in the shipyard industry.

Alternatives: OSHA has considered but rejected the alternative of allowing the existing rule to remain in place, because the Agency believes that doing so would contribute to the unacceptable number of fire-related accidents occurring in shipyards every year.

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The Agency has estimated annual costs of the NPRM to be $4.3 million, and that there will be cost savings of $6.2 million, in addition to avoiding fatalities and injuries.

Risks: The Agency has estimated that compliance with the NPRM would avoid one fatality and 110 lost workday injuries annually.

Abstract: OSHA's Commercial Diving Operations standard (29 CFR 1910.401 to 1910.441) was published in 1977. In the intervening years, major changes in the technology of diving systems and equipment have occurred. In December 1999, OSHA granted a permanent variance to Dixie Divers, Inc., permitting recreational diving instructors employed by that company to comply with the provisions of the variance rather than with paragraphs (b)(2) and (c)(3)(iii) of 1910.423 and paragraph (b)(1) of 1910.426. Since OSHA granted the variance, other employers of recreational diving instructors have asked OSHA to clarify the applicability of the variance to their operations. OSHA published a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend the commercial diving operations standard to reflect the alternative specified in the permanent variance granted to Dixie Divers, Inc.

Abstract: OSHA will undertake a review of the Agency's Presence Sensing Device Initiation of Mechanical Power Presses rule (29 CFR 1910.217) in accordance with the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and section 5 of Executive Order 12866. The review will consider among other things, the need for the rule, the impacts of the rule, public comments on the rule, the complexity of the rule, and whether the rule overlaps, duplicates, or conflicts with other regulations.,br>

Abstract: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) issued a final rule on Occupational Injury and Illness Recording and Reporting Requirements (66 FR 5916, January 19,2001), scheduled to become effective on January 1, 2002. Following a thorough regulatory review, the Agency determined that all but two provisions of the final rule, regarding the recording of occupational hearing (1904.10) and musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) (1904.12), would take effect as scheduled (66 FR 35113, July 3, 2001). Following notice and comment, OSHA published a final rule delaying the effective dates for sections 1904.10, 1910.12 and a note to 1904.29(b)(7)(vi) until January 1, 2003. The same final rule provided interim guidance on recording hearing loss and MSD cases during 2002 (66 FR 52031, October 12, 2001).

OSHA issued a final 1904.10 regulation setting recording criteria for occupational hearing loss (67 FR 44037, July 1, 2002), and simultaneously issued a proposal to delay the requirements for checking a separate hearing loss column on the 300 Log, as well as an additional one-year delay for the 1904.12 MSD requirements (67 FR 44124, July 1, 2002). The final rule on hearing loss and delay of the effective date was published in December of 2002. OSHA is continuing to reconsider the 300 Log column for MSDs, and for defining "musculoskeletal disorders" for recordkeeping purposes. OSHA will issue a final rule to deal with these injury and illness recording issues for the years 2004 and beyond.

1832.  PROCEDURES FOR HANDLING DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINTS UNDER SECTION 806 OF THE CORPORATE AND CRIMINAL FRAUD ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2002

Priority: Info./Admin./Other

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined

Legal Authority: 18 USC 1514A

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1980

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: The Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002, Public Law 107-204 was enacted July 30, 2002. Among other provisions, title VIII, entitled the Corporate and Criminal Fraud Accountability Act of 2002, provides protection for employees of publicly traded companies who provide evidence of fraud to any Federal law enforcement agency, members of Congress, or a person with supervisory authority over the employee. This rule establishes procedures and time frames for the handling of complaints under the Act.

Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined

Legal Authority: 29 USC 651; 29 USC 655; 29 USC 657

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.1000; 29 CFR 1910.1031

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: OSHA published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) on April 2, 1987 (52 FR 10586). OSHA used the information received in response to the ANPRM, as well as other information and analysis, and published a proposal on March 23, 1993 (58 FR 15526), that would reduce the permissible exposure limits for four glycol ethers and provide protection for approximately 46,000 workers exposed to these substances. OSHA re-opened the record to collect updated information to help determine what action should be taken. OSHA is planning to withdraw this regulation in September 2004.

Timetable:

Action

Date

ANPRMANPRM Comment Period EndNPRMNPRM Comment Period EndReopen RecordComment Period EndTo Be Withdrawn

Abstract: In 1999 and 2001, OSHA was petitioned to issue an emergency temporary standard by the Paper Allied-Industrial, Chemical, and Energy Workers Union, Public Citizen Health Research Group and others. The Agency denied the petitions but stated its intent to begin data gathering efforts to collect needed information on beryllium's toxicity, risks, and patterns of usage.

On November 26, 2002, OSHA published a Request for Information (RFI) (67 FR 70707) to solicit information pertinent to occupational exposure to beryllium including: current exposures to beryllium; the relationship between exposure to beryllium and the development of adverse health effects; exposure assessment and monitoring methods; exposure control methods; and medical surveillance. In addition, the Agency conducted field surveys of selected work sites to assess current exposures and control methods being used to reduce employee exposures to beryllium. OSHA will use this information to assist the Agency in determining an appropriate course of action regarding occupational exposure to beryllium. While the Agency continues to review the information, it appears that the SBREFA process could be initiated by September 2004.

Abstract: Generally, OSHA standards require that protective equipment (including personal protective equipment (PPE)) be provided and used when necessary to protect employees from hazards that can cause them injury, illness, or physical harm. In this discussion, OSHA uses the abbreviation "PPE" to cover both personal protective equipment and other protective equipment. The Agency continues to consider how to address this issue.

Abstract: OSHA issued a section 6(b)(5) health standard mandating a comprehensive hearing conservation program for noise-exposed workers in general industry in 1983. However, no rule was promulgated to cover workers in the construction industry. A number of recent studies have shown that many construction workers experience work-related hearing loss. In addition, the use of engineering, administrative and personal protective equipment to reduce exposures to noise is not extensive in this industry. OSHA published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking to gather information on the extent of noise-induced hearing loss among workers in different trades in this industry, current practices to reduce this loss, and additional approaches and protections that could be used to prevent such loss in the future. The Agency is reviewing the comments received and other information to determine the appropriate course of action, but expects that an NPRM could be published in September 2004.

Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.

Legal Authority: 29 USC 651(b); 29 USC 655(b); 40 USC 333

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1926

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: Subpart N addresses hazards associated with various types of hoisting equipment used at construction sites. Such equipment includes cranes and derricks. The existing rule, which dates back to 1971, is based in part on industry consensus standards from 1958, 1968, and 1969. There have been considerable technological changes since those consensus standards were developed. Industry consensus standards for derricks and for crawler, truck and locomotive cranes were updated as recently as 1995.

A cross-section of the industry has asked OSHA to update subpart N. OSHA has determined that the existing rule needs to be revised.

Timetable:

Action

Date

Notice Establish NegotiatedComment Period EndRequest for CommentsRequest for Comment Period EndgNPRM

Abstract: OSHA will undertake a review of the Agency's trenching and excavations standard (29 CFR 1926.650 to 1926.652) in accordance with the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and section 5 of Executive Order 12866. The review will consider the continued need for the rule, the impacts of the rule, public comments on the rule, the complexity of the rule, and whether the rule overlaps, duplicates, or conflicts with other regulations.

Abstract: Under section 6(a) of the OSH Act, during the first two years of the Act, the Agency was directed to adopt national consensus standards as OSHA standards. Some of these standards were adopted as regulatory text, while others were incorporated by reference. In the thirty years since these standards were adopted by OSHA, the organizations responsible for these consensus standards have issued updated versions of these standards. However, in most cases, OSHA has not revised its regulations to reflect later editions of the consensus standards. OSHA standards also continue to incorporate by reference various consensus standards that are now outdated and, in some cases, out of print.

The Agency is now considering the possibility of initiating rulemaking to update some of these standards. In that regard, OSHA has asked various consensus standards organizations to review their standards, compare the latest versions of these standards to the ones currently adopted by OSHA, and determine which ones are most important for OSHA to update. Additionally, OSHA has asked them to consider whether the changes to these standards would be noncontroversial, and if the new versions would reduce risk. The organizations were enthusiastic about the possibility of updating references to their standards, and they have provided considerable information on priorities and other related issues. OSHA is in the process of evaluating the information it has received in order to determine the best way to proceed. It is possible that a direct final rule may be appropriate to address some of these standards, and others may be more appropriately addressed by an NPRM.

Abstract: OSHA is considering amending 29 CFR 1910.109 that addresses explosives and blasting agents. These OSHA regulations were published in 1974, and many of the provisions do not reflect technological and safety advances made by the industry since that time. Additionally, the standard contains outdated references and classifications. Two trade associations representing many of the employers subject to this rule have petitioned the Agency to consider revising it, and have recommended changes they believe address the concerns they are raising. OSHA is in the process of reviewing the petition and related information about the issue, and will determine the appropriate course of action regarding this standard when the review is completed. OSHA expects to publish an NPRM by July 2004.

Abstract: OSHA is undertaking a review of its grain handling standard (29 CFR 1910.272) in accordance with the requirements of section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and section 5 of EO 12866. The review will cover the continued need for the rule; the nature of complaints or comments received from the public concerning the rule; the complexity of the rule; the extent to which the rule overlaps, duplicates or conflicts with other Federal rules and, to the extent feasible, with State and local rules; and the degree to which technology, economic conditions, or other factors have changed in the industries affected by the rule.

Abstract: Many Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standards were adopted under section 6(a) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act; 29 U.S.C. 655(a)). This section of the OSH Act authorized the Agency, in its first 2 years of existence, to adopt national consensus standards without prior notice and comment. The versions of the consensus standards OSHA adopted are now typically well over 30 years old and have been superseded by newer ones. In addition, many of these old standards were written in technical jargon and were hard for many employers and employees to understand.

To address these problems, OSHA has revised exit routes (also known as means of egress) standard. The revisions rewrite the standard in simple, easy-to-understand language that will be easier for employers and employees to follow.

Abstract: On March 8, 2000, Congress enacted the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century, commonly known as the Air Act. Section 519 of the Act (49 USC 42121) prohibits air carriers or air carrier contractors or subcontractors from discharging or otherwise discriminating against employees for exercising specified rights under the Act. The Act further provides that the Secretary of Labor investigate employee claims of discrimination and ultimately issue a determination and order after an opportunity for either party to request a hearing on the record. Procedural rules are needed for filing, investigating, litigating, and adjudicating complaints filed pursuant to the Act.

Thank You for Visiting Our Website

You are exiting the Department of Labor's Web server.

The Department of Labor does not endorse, takes no responsibility for, and exercises no control over the linked organization or its views, or contents, nor does it vouch for the accuracy or accessibility of the information contained on the destination server. The Department of Labor also cannot authorize the use of copyrighted materials contained in linked Web sites. Users must request such authorization from the sponsor of the linked Web site. Thank you for visiting our site. Please click the button below to continue.